BS 

V315 
Wfe 


UC-NRLF 


B   ^   SDS   603 


CO 

O 
Q 


1    iyi5 
LIAKGE 


THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH 

INTRODUCTION,  CRITICALLY-REVISED  TEXT, 

CRITICAL  NOTES,  TRANSLATION,  AND 

EXPLANATORY  NOTES 


BY 

LOUIS  BERNARD  WOLFENSON,  M.A. 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  OF  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS 

UNIVERSITY  IN    CONFORMITY  WITH  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


Baltimore,  Maryland  (February,  1907) 
1911 


THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH 

INTRODUCTION,  CRITICALLY-REVISED  TEXT, 

CRITICAL  NOTES,  TRANSLATION,  AND 

EXPLANATORY  NOTES 


BY 

LOUIS  BERNARD  WOLFENSON,  M.A. 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  OF  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS 

UNIVERSITY  IN    CONFORMITY  WITH  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 

THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


Baltimore,  Maryland  (February,  1907) 
1911 


PRINTED   AT  THE   tJNI\T:RSITY   OF   CHICAGO  PRESS 


PREFACE 

The  following  material  is  a  reworking  and  abstract  of  several 
sections  of  the  Introduction  of  the  dissertation  as  presented  to  the 
Board  of  University  Studies  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.  The 
contents  of  the  dissertation  in  full  were  as  follows : 

Introduction. 

Section  1 :  The  Character  of  the  Book. 

Section  2:  The  Contents  of  the  Book. 

Section  3:  The  Place  of  the  Book  in  the  Canon. 

Section  4:  The  Place  of  the  Book  in  Edd.  and  MSS. 

Section  5:  The  Date  and  Origin  of  the  Book. 

Section  6:  The  Purpose  of  the  Book. 

Section  7 :  The  Hebrew  Text  and  the  Ancient  Versions. 

Critically  Revised  Text. 

Critical  and  Philological  Notes. 
Notes  on  Chap.  1. 
Notes  on  Chap.  2. 
Notes  on  Chap.  3. 
Notes  on  Chap.  4. 

Translation. 

Explanatory  Notes. 
Notes  on  Chap.  1. 
Notes  on  Chap.  2. 
Notes  on  Chap.  3. 
Notes  on  Chap.  4. 

Biographical  Sketch. 

The  first  three  parts  of  the  following  matter  were  published  in 
the  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages,  Vol.  XXVII,  July,  1911, 
pp.  285-300,  under  the  title  "The  Character,  Contents,  and  Date  of 
Ruth";  the  last  part,  in  somewhat  different  form,  will  be  published 
in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  April,  1912. 


L.    B.    WOLFENSON 


Madison,  Wis. 
December,  1911 


251812 


THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH 


INTRODUCTION,  CRITICALLY  REVISED  TEXT,  CRITICAL 
NOTES,  TRANSLATION,  AND  EXPLANA- 
TORY NOTES 

By  Dr.  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

I.     THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  BOOK 

When  Ernest  RBiran  spoke  of  Ecclesiastes  as  the  only  charming 
book  that  was  written  by  a  Jew/  one  is  tempted  to  remark  that  he 
cannot  have  known  or  appreciated  the  Book  of  Ruth.  In  this 
short  narrative  of  only  four  chapters  we  have,  certainly,  the  most 
charming  and  attractive  story  of  the  whole  of  extant  ancient  Hebrew 
Uterature.  Goethe  says^  that  the  Book  of  Ruth  is  "das  lieblichste 
kleine  ^anze,  das  uns  episch  und  idylHsch  liberliefert  worden  ist." 

While  Ecclesiastes  attracts  thinkers,^  there  is  little  that  is  really 
charming  about  the  book.  It  has  come  down  to  us  as  a  confused 
conglomeration  of  precepts  hardly  intelligible  without  a  thorough- 
going rearrangement  and  editing*  such  as  Renan  at  least  never  knew. 
Ruth,  on  the  contrary,  has  reached  us  in  as  perfect  a  state  as  perhaps 
any  text  of  the  Old  Testament.     The  story  is  clear  throughout, 

'  L' Antichrist,  p.  101:  livre  charmant,  le  seul  livre  aimable,  qui  He  compose  par  un 
Juif.  Cheyne  says  (^06  and  Solomon,  p.  244):  "M.  Renan,  in  fact,  seems  to  me  at  once 
to  admire  Kohelet  too  much  and  to  justify  hiis  admiration  on  questionable  grounds." 

2  Westdstlichen  Divan,  Bunker's  ed.  of  Goethe's  Werke,  p.  217,  Hebraer:  Beispielt 
tvxllen  jedoch  gedenken  wir  des  Buches  Ruth,  welches  bei  seinem  hohen  Zweck  einem  Kdnige 
von  Israel  anstdndige,  interessante  Voreltern  zu  verschaffen,  zugleich  als  das  lieblicksle 
kleine  Game,  etc. 

»  Cf .  Haupt,  "Ecclesiastes,"  Amer.  Jour.  0/  Philology,  Vol.  XXVI,  2  (102],  pp. 
125,  126. 

•  Cf.  Professor  Haupt's  rearrangement  cited  above. 

1 


2  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

although  some  details  are  more  or  less  obscure,  and  can  be  read 
easily,  requiring  little  study  to  appreciate  the  account. 

The  book  is  not  stored  with  political  or  national  history,  nor  yet 
with  moral  precepts,  which  we  find  in  other  narrative  writings  of  the 
ancient  Israelites,  but  depicts  the  human  vicissitudes  and  homely 
virtues  of  love  and  constancy  of  the  ancestors  of  David,  the  great 
King  of  the  Hebrews.  Incidentally,  customs  of  the  day  are  faithfully 
represented.  Just  what  institutions  these  customs  evidence,  is  the 
obscure  part  of  the  book.  But  this  detracts  but  little  from  its 
beauty  and  the  readiness  with  which  the  story  itself  may  be  under- 
stood. In  its  simplicity  and  love  of  detaiP  it  is  epic^  in  character. 
It  might  well  be  an  episode  from  some  great  epic. 

The  clash  of  arms,  the  diplomacies  of  statecraft,  and  the  warning 
prophecies  of  prophets  shaping  the  policy  of  the  nation  are  alike 
absent  from  this  idyl — as  the  work  is  fitly  styled  by  many.  The 
atmosphere  of  the  Book  of  Ruth  is  redolent  of  ripening  corn,  mown 
grain,  and  merry  shouts  of  reapers  as  they  gather  the  golden  harvest. 
And  so  it  has  come  about  that  the  story  of  Ruth  and  Boaz  has  be- 
come tjT)ical  of  the  restful  quiet  of  country  life  and  of  harvest-time 
and  plentiful  crops.^ 

Among  Jews  the  Book  of  Ruth  is  read  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost, 
which  was  the  corn-harvest  festival  of  Palestine,^  marking  the  close 
of  the  grain-harvest  which  concluded  with  the  wheat-gathering 
(cf.  Ruth  2:23).  The  connection  of  the  book  with  the  harvest  is 
found  in  the  fact  that  the  scene  of  the  story  proper  is  laid  in  the  har- 
vest-season, while  the  action  is  for  the  most  part  bound  up  with  the 
harvesting. 

'  For  instances  of  this,  cf.  the  scene  where  Boaz  conies  to  the  field  in  chap.  ii.  In 
vs.  6  we  find  a  repetition  of  the  same  wording  as  in  vs.  5:  thus  vs.  5,  "And  he  said  to 
the  young  man  placed  over  the  reapers,"  and  vs.  6,  "And  the  young  man  placed  over 
the  reapers  made  answer  and  said."  For  "  made  answer  and  said"  as  an  epic  touch,  cf . 
the  Homeric,  "Him  (her)  then  answered  and  said,"  e.g.,  Odyssey,  19,  405,  T'rjv  S'  avr'  'Auto- 
AvKos  d7ra/Aet(3eTo  (fxoi'ijCTtV  re,  which  occuTs  often  (thus  or  with  some  variation  in  words  in 
other  passages,  e.g.,  Od.  7,  207). 

» This  is  not  in  any  wise  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  the  composition  as  an 
idyl,  since  the  idyl  is  a  form  of  epic;  cf.  Gummere,  Handbook  of  Poetics',  Boston,  1898, 
p.  30. 

'  References  to  the  characters  of  Ruth  are  not  infrequent  in  literature.  W.  E.  Addis, 
The  Book  of  Job  and  the  Book  of  Ruth  (Temple  Bible),  London  and  Philadelphia,  1902, 
gives  a  number  (at  the  end  of  the  book).  For  references  in  German,  cf.  Reuss,  Geschichte 
des  A.T.,  Braunschweig,  1890,  pp.  312,  313. 

>Cf.  Exod.  34:22;  Lev.  23:15fl.;  Deut.  16:911.,  16;   II  Ohron.  8:13. 


The  Book  of  Ruth  3 

II.  CONTENTS  OF  THE  BOOK 

The  first  chapter  is  introductory.  In  consequence  of  a  severe 
famine  in  the  period  of  the  Judges,  Elimelech,  with  his  wife  Naomi, 
and  his  two  sons  Mahlon  and  Chilion,  left  Bethlehem  of  Judah  to 
sojourn  in  Moab.  There,  after  a  time,  Elimelech  died,  and  his 
sons  married  Moabite  women,  Orpah  and  Ruth.  After  about  ten 
years  Mahlon  and  Chilion  also  died.  Naomi  then  proceeded  to 
return  to  Bethlehem.  With  her,  Ruth  and  Orpah  set  out,  but  the 
latter,  at  Naomi's  soHcitations,  turned  back.  Ruth  persisted  in 
following  her  mother-in-law,  and  the  two  arrived  in  Bethlehem  at 
the  commencement  of  the  barley-harvest. 

The  second  chapter  relates  the  gleaning  of  Ruth  on  Boaz'  field. 
She  came  to  his  field  by  chance.  Ari^iving  from  Bethlehem,  Boaz 
•  espied  Ruth  gleaning  and  treated  her  with  great  kindness.  He 
personally  attended  to  her  welfare  and  protection  and  supplied  her 
with  enough  food  for  herself  and  mother-in-law.  At  night  on 
learning  of  the  reception  accorded  her,  Naomi  advised  Ruth  to 
remain  on  Boaz'  field;  and  she  gleaned  thus  throughout  the  entire 
harvest,  dwelling  with  Naomi. 

In  the  third  chapter  Ruth  carries  out  the  plan  of  her  mother-in- 
law  to  get  a  home  for  her.  As  Boaz  is  a  relative  of  Naomi's  husband, 
he  must  redeem  Elimelech's  estate.  Ruth  visits  Boaz  on  the  thresh- 
ing floor,  where  the  grain  is  winnowed,  that  night.  Awakening  about 
midnight,  Boaz  finds  Ruth  beside  him  and  questions  her.  He 
promises  to  help  her  arid  do  as  she  requests,  provided  a  nearer 
relative,  with  a  previous  claim,  does  not  exercise  his  right.  Ruth 
remains  until  morning  with  Boaz,  when  he  presents  her  with  six 
measures  of  barley  to  supply  the  wants  of  his  relatives. 

In  the  last  chapter  Boaz  redeems  his  promise  and  marries  Ruth. 
At  the  city-gate  he  finds  the  nearer  relative  and  in  the  presence  of 
ten  elders  explains  the  conditions  with  regard  to  the  estate  of  Elime- 
lech and  the  necessity  of  redeeming  Ruth  with  it.  Being  unable 
to  redeem,  he  relinquished  his  claims;  whereupon  Boaz  declared  he 
would  buy  the  estate  for  himself.  All  present  blessed  Boaz  and 
Ruth,  and  the  pair  were  married.  Of  this  union  was  born  Obed, 
father  of  Jesse,  father  of  King  David.  A  genealogy  of  David's  line 
closes  the  book. 


4  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

III.    THE  DATE  AND  ORIGIN 

The  opening  words  of  Ruth,  "In  the  days  when  the  Judges 
exercised  authority,"  place  the  events  of  the  book  in  the  age  of  the 
Judges.  The  account,  however,  may  have  been  written  by  an  author 
at  a  much  later  day,  although  Jewish  tradition^  has  it  that  our  book, 
together  with  the  books  of  Judges  and  Samuel,  was  written  by 
Samuel. 

It  is  quite  impossible  that  Samuel  wrote  the  book  (or  books) 
bearing  his  name  and  it  is  quite  improbable,  if  not  impossible,  that 
he  wrote  Ruth  and  Judges;  still  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  Jewish 
legend  is  right  in  ascribing  an  early  origin  to  the  Book  of  Ruth  in 
common  with  the  other  two  books.  In  accord  with  this  an  early 
date  for  Ruth  was  accepted  by  Keil,^°  Cassel,^^  and  C.  H.  H.  Wright.^- 
Davidson^^  placed  the  date  of  the  writing  of  the  book  in  the  time  of 
Hezekiah,  whom  Sennacherib,  King  of  Assyria  (705-681  b.c),  shut  up 
in  Jerusalem  "like  a  bird  in  a  cage."  Ed.  Reuss^'*  dated  the  book  in 
the  same  period. 

Other  scholars  believe  the  Book  of  Ruth  was  of  later  origin: 
(1)  later  in  the  period  of  the  Kings  but  still  before  the  Exile,  (2) 
during  the  Exile,  (3)  or  even  after  the  Exile.  As  representatives  of 
the  first  of  these  views,  Oettli^^  and  Strack^^  may  be  mentioned. 
Driver,^^  too,  places  the  book  in  the  pre-Exilic  period.    As  assigning 

•Talmud  (Jerusalem),  Ba6.  Bo<;i.,  146.  ;i'     ?'?      'V"?  1r* 

i»  Commentary  on  Judges  and  Ruth^,  1874  (1st  ed.,  1863). 

"  Das  Buck  der  Richter  u.  Ruth^,  Bielefeld  u.  Leipzig,  1887,  pp.  262  f.  He  believed 
Ruth  was  written  in  the  reign  of  King  David  at  the  time  of  the  height  of  his  splendor 
(p.  2646). 

i^  The  Book  of  Ruthin  Hebrew  ....  (WiUiams  and  Norgate),  London  and  Leipzig, 
1864,  Intro.,  p.  xUv.  Here  Wright  makes  the  date  "not  later  than  the  time  of  David." 
In  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Test.^,  London,  1891  (1st  ed.,  1890),  Wright  stated,  "No 
certadn  date  can  be  assigned  .....  only  that  it  must  have  been  written  after  the 
time  of  Da\id  and  long  prior  to  the  Exile." 

1'  Introduction  to  the  Old  Test.  (3  vols.)  (Williams  &  Norgate),  Edinburgh.  Vol.  I, 
1862,  pp.  482  fl. 

"  Geschichle  der  Heiligen  Schriften  des  Alten  Test.^,  p.  314,  §  244. 

15  In  his  commentary  on  Ruth  in  Die  geschichtUchen  Hagiographen  und  das  Buck 
Daniel  von  OettU  u.'Meinhold  (Strack  und  Zockler's  kurzgefasster  Kommentar),  Nord- 
lingen,  1889,  pp.  215  ff. 

"  Einleitung  in  das  Alle  Test.^,  Munchen,  1898,  p.  142. 

I'  An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Test.^"  (LOT^"),  New  York,  1902,  p.  455. 
Driver  says,  "It  seems  to  the  writer  that  the  general  beauty  and  piu-ity  of  style  of  Ruth 
point  more  decidedly  to  the  pre-exilic  period  than  do  the  isolated  expressions  quoted  [a 
number  of  supposed  late  and  Aramaic  words]  to  the  period  after  the  exile." 


The  Book  of  Ruth  5 

Ruth  to  the  period  of  the  Exile,  I  may  mention  Ewald^^  and  Konig.'* 
The  latter,  however,  believed  it  was  only  the  final  redaction  of  the 
book  which  fell  in  the  period  of  the  Exile — the  first  reduction  to 
writing  was  more  ancient  {einer  dlteren  Schriftlichmachung),^'^  and  this 
reduction  to  writing  came  only  after  a  period  of  oral  transmission  as 
a  folk-story  ("im  Volksmunde")-  With  this  long  period  of  oral 
transmission  together  with  his  belief  that  the  story  rests  upon  a 
historical  foundation,  Konig  may  be  said  actually  to  regard  the 
origin  of  the  book  as  early  in  the  period  of  the  Kings.^^ 

The  majority  of  modern  writers,  however,  assign  Ruth  to  the 
post-Exilic  period.  Of  those  who  have  adopted  this  view  there  may 
be  mentioned  Bertholdt,^^  Bertheau,^^  Schrader,^*  Graetz,^^  Kuenen,^^ 
Wellhausen,27  Orelli,^^  Budde,^^  Wildeboer,3o  Bertholet,^!  Nowack,32 
Cheyne,^^  Winckler,^*  Haupt,^^  Cornill,^^  etc. 

"  Geschichte  Israels,  I,  225. 

1'  Einleilung  in  das  Alte  Test.,  Bonn,  1893,  p.  287:  exilischen  Herstellung. 

2»  Op.  cit.,  p.  286.  (The  word  Schriftlichmachung  is  unusual.  Professor  Haupt 
remarks  of  this  use  here  that  it  is  strange  and  that  Aufzeichnung  would  be  better.)  Similar 
to  Konig's  view  is  Orelli's,  but  he  places  the  final  redaction  after  the  Exile;  of.  below,  n.  28. 

='  Redpath,  also,  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  Vol.  IV,  art.  "Ruth,"  p.  316  (Date 
of  the  Book),  would  assign  the  book  to  this  period.  He  says,  "It  claims  no  particular 
date  for  itself,  though  the  style  would  lead  us  to  assign  it  to  a  comparatively  early  one." 

"  Einleitung,  pp.  231  fif. 

"  Das  Buck  Richter  und  Ruth,  Leipzig,  1883,  p.  290. 

"  In  de  Wette-Schrader,  Lehrbuch  der  hist.-krit.  Einleitung'^,  Berlin,  1869,  p.  395:  Es 
ist  am  wahrscheinlichsten  in  die  erste  Zeit  nach  dem  Exil  zu  verlegen,  als  durch  Serubbabel 
{Hagg.  I,  I4.  II,  3,  S2.  Sack.  IV,  9)  die  Blicke  widerum  auf  das  Davidische  Haus  gelenkt 
waren. 

"  History  of  the  Jews  (Eng.  translation  of  the  Jewish  Publication  Society  of  America), 
Vol.  I,  Philadelphia,  1891,  pp.  370,  411. 

2«  Onderzoek,  I,  pp.  212,  214:  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Neheiniah. 

"  Bleek-Wellhausen,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Test.*,  Berlin,  1878,  pp.  204,  205;  Wei  - 
hausen,  Composition  des  Hexateuchs  u.  der  hist.  Bilcher  des  Alten  Test.'',  Berlin,  1889,  pp. 
357—59:  Nach  dem  Exil. 

28  In  Protestant.  Realencycl.^,  Vol.  XIII,  art.  "Ruth,"  p.  142;  ',  Vol.  XVII,  Leipzig. 
1906,  pp.  267  f. 

"  In  Z AT,  XII,  1892,  pp.  37-59,  Vermutungen  zum  "Midraschdes  Buches  der  KSnige," 
III.      Book  of  Ruth,  pp.  43^6:    spate  Abfassungszeit,  p.  43  below. 

>»  Die  Literatur  des  Allen  Test.,  Gottingen,  1895,  pp.  341  flf. 

"  Das  Buch  Ruth  (in  Fiinf  Megill.),  Einleitung,  pp.  50,  51  f. 

"  Richter-Ruth,  Einleitung  zu  Ruth,  pp.  180  flf. 

"  In  Encycl.  Biblica,  Vol.  IV,  art.  "  Ruth,"  cols.  4167,  4168. 

'<  In  Altorientalische  Forschungen,  IIH  (1901),  Leipzig,  1902,  "Ruth,"  pp.  65  ff.;  II 
(1898-1900),  Leipzig,  1901,  pp.  232,  504. 

"  In  the  interpretation  of  the  Book  of  Ruth  in  the  Old  Test.  Seminary  of  the  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  session  of  1904-5. 

"  Einleitung^,  Tubingen,  1905,  §22,  2,  3,  pp.  158,  159. 


6  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

The  assumption  of  a  post-Exilic  date,  which  is  thus  the  most 
widely  prevalent  view  at  present,  rests  on  general  indications.  Of 
these  there  are  but  five  that  possess  any  weight,  and  they  are  as 
follows : 

1.  The  opening  words  of  the  book.  In  the  days  when  the  Judges 
exercised  authority.  This  places  the  narration  at  a  point  subsequent 
to  the  events  related,  so  that  the  narrator  views  the  period  as  a  com- 
pleted whole.  Further,  the  quiet  and  peace  pervading  the  Book  of 
Ruth  is  in  striking  contrast  to  the  turbulent  and  unsettled  age  of 
the  Judges.  It  is  urged  that  only  a  very  late  writer  (no  longer 
realizing  the  incongruity  of  a  peaceful  state,  such  as  portrayed  in 
Ruth,  in  the  days  of  the  Judges)  could  have  represented  the  events 
of  our  book  in  that  age.  If  actually  written  at  an  early  date,  the 
book  would  reflect  the  spirit  of  the  times,  or  at  least  the  state  of 
affairs  would  not  have  been  depicted  as  calm  and  restful. 
>  2.  The  genealogy  in  4 :  18-22  indicates  by  its  style  and  formularistic 
character,  which  it  has  in  common  with  the  Priestly  Code  (P),  that 
the  book  is  at  least  as  late  as  P.  No  writer  before  the  Exile  would 
have  used  JTiilbin  SllsSl,  "these  are  the  generations,"  as  an  intro- 
ductory formula  for  the  genealogical  table,  and  T'bin ,  "he  begot," 
in  the  table  itself.  Wellhausen  has  pointed  out  that  the  genealogj-, 
which  represents  Salmon  as  the  father  of  Bethlehem  (Boaz),  could 
not  be  pre-Exilic,  for  Salmon  was  not  considered  the  father  of  Beth- 
lehem until  after  the  Exile." 

3.  The  passage  4:7,  relating  what  was  customary  in  Israel 
"formerly,"  t2"'33b ,  indicates  that  when  this  was  written,  the  cus- 
tom was  long  since  past.  The  practice  alluded  to,  the  drawing  off 
of  the  shoe,  is  the  same  as  the  haltgah  of  Deut.  25:9,  10;  and  this 
could  not  have  been  forgotten  as  long  as  the  practice  of  Deuteronomy 
was  known.  The  explanation  of  4:7,  however,  proves  that  the  cus- 
tom was  no  longer  known.  Now  the  only  conceivable  period  when 
this  custom  could  have  died  out  and  been  spoken  of  as  existing 
"formerly,"  D''j3b ,  is  after  the  Exile,  which  disrupted  the  whole 
life  of  Israel.  Containing  such  an  explanation,  Ruth  therefore  was 
written  at  a  time  when  the  explanation  was  necessary,  and  this  was 
after  the  Exile. 

«'  Cf.  I  Chron.  2:54  (Professor  Haupt). 


The  Book  of  Ruth  7 

4.  In  the  Jewish  arrangement  of  biblical  books,  Ruth  is  found 
in  the  third  division  or  D'^n^nS ,  "Writings."  This  indicates  a 
late  origin;  for  if  the  book  had  been  in  existence  when  the  collection 
of  D"'5<"':33  was  formed,  it  would  appear  among  the  "Prophets." 
To  be  sure,  Ruth  is  placed  after  Judges  in  the  LXX,  etc.,  but  this, 
it  is  urged,  is  a  later  practice. 

5.  Lastly,  the  linguistic  peculiarities  and  affinities  of  our  book  are 
said  to  be  distinctly  late.  The  few  expressions  occurring  in  Ruth 
which  are  found  elsewhere  only  in  the  oldest  writings  may  be  due  to 
conscious  borrowing  to  give  an  archaic  flavor,  but  the  presence  of 
words  found  elsewhere  only  in  Aramaic,  together  with  the  use  of 
words  in  senses  in  which  they  are  found  only  in  late  Hebrew  or 
Aramaic,  precludes  the  possibility  of  an  early  date  and  compels  us 
to  assign  a  late  date. 

A  consideration  of  the  foregoing  alleged  indications  of  late  date 
of  the  Book  of  Ruth  will  reveal  the  fact  that  the  first  four  are  abso- 
lutely inconclusive  or  no  arguments  for  a  late  origin:  the  supposed 
indications  can  be  accounted  for  equally  well,  or  much  better,  other- 
wise.   The  arguments  will  be  considered  in  the  order  given. 

1.  While  it  is  true  that  In  the  days  when  the  Judges  exercised 
authority  points  to  a  date  subsequent  to  the  age  of  the  Judges,  such 
a  date  need  not  be  later  than  the  date  of  the  Judaic  (J)  document,  or 
about  850  B.C.,  which  is  long  enough  after  the  days  of  the  Judges 
to  justify  the  statement  quoted,  being  at  least  a  century  and  a  half 
after  that  time.  Then,  too,  the  opening  words  may  be  due  to  later 
redaction,  let  us  say  of  the  time  of  the  "  Deuteronomistic "  editing 
of  JE,  i.e.,  the  reworking  of  the  Judaic  and  Ephraimitic  histories 
of  the  Hebrew  people  to  conform  to  Deuteronomy.  The  Book  of 
Ruth  may  have  formed  an  episode  in  the  history  which  was,  perhaps 
at  the  time  of  this  editing,  broken  up  into  books  or  new  divisions; 
and  our  book  on  being  taken  out  of  its  old  connection  had  the  words 
d"'t33'J3n  t33w  '"'il'^l  ^tr^  added  to  convert  the  episode  into  an 
independent  book.  That  Ruth  was  once  a  part  of  the  JE  history, 
or  at  least  of  J,  will  be  shown  below  (see  p.  298) ;  here  it  is  sufficient 
to  point  out  that  the  words  quoted  do  not  necessarily  indicate  a  late 
date — are  perfectly  consistent  with  a  date  as  early  as  850  b.c. 

The  peaceful  and  settled  character  of  the  events  portrayed  in 


8  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

Ruth,  also,  is  not  at  all  incompatible  with  their  having  been  enacted 
in  the  period  of  the  Judges.  The  life  of  the  people  in  Palestine  and 
Judah  at  that  time  was  not  uninterruptedly  unsettled  and  warlike. 
As  Oettli^*  and  Strack''  have  pointed  out,  there  were  periods  in  the 
age  of  the  Judges  which  were  entirely  peaceful  and  quiet.  Oettli 
justly  compares  the  various  intervals  of  peace  during  the  Thirty- 
Years'  War,  and  Strack  draws  attention  to  the  repeated  notices  of 
peaceful  and  secure  periods  during  the  time  of  the  Judges,  found  in 
the  book  itself,  e.g.,  3:11,  30,  etc. 

But  to  this  Nowack  replies  that  while  there  may  well  have  been 
some  peaceful  intervals,  life  during  the  whole  age  of  the  Judges  was 
not  pervaded  with  a  well-grounded  sense  of  order  as  is  manifested 
at  every  turn  in  the  Book  of  Ruth,  dominating  the  conduct  of  every 
character.  In  short,  "Yahwism"  pervades  and  dominates  the  life 
and  thought  of  everyone,  cf.  1:8  f.,  13,  16  f.,  20  f.;  2:4,  12,  20; 
3:10,  13;  4:11  f.,  14.  Yahwism,  however,  was  established  in  the 
days  of  the  Judges  just  as  much  as  a  number  of  centuries  later, 
especially  as  Yahweh  was  the  national  God,  and  Bethlehem  and  Judah 
his  natural  home.  It  must  be  remembered  that  there  is  as  much 
Yahwism  in  the  Judaic  document  and  in  the  oldest  portions  of  Judges 
as  in  Ruth;*"  and  the  song  of  Deborah,  the  earliest  bit  of  Hebrew 
literature,  might  be  considered  late  on  the  same  basis  of  Yahwism.''^ 

Nor  can  it  be  objected  that  the  "Yahwism"  in  this  song  and  in 
Judges  in  general  is  of  a  different  character  from  that  in  Ruth,  for 
we  must  remember  the  different  character  of  different  events.  If 
Deborah  could  sing  (Judg.  5 : 2)  Praise  ye  Yahweh  for  the  avenging  of 
Israel  (cf.  also  vs.  3),  are  we  to  suppose  that  the  characters  of  Ruth 
say  anything  but  that  which  is  equally  customary  and  appropriate 
in  the  same  age,  but  under  different  circumstances,  when  they  say 
Yahweh  be  with  you,  etc.  (2:4;  cf.  Judg.  1:19)?  And  again,  is  it 
any  more  a  late  conception  of  Yahweh  when  Naomi  says  (Ruth  1 : 8) 
May  Yahweh  deal  graciously  with  you,  than  when  Jephthah  says 
(Judg.   11:27)  May  Yahweh,  the  Judge,  decide  to-day  between  the 

«8  Op.  cit.,  p.  214.  39  Op.  cit.,  p.  142. 

"Cf.  Judg.  1:19,  and  Yahxveh  was  with  Judah  (J);  2:20  (E),  23  (J);  3:20  (E),  28 
(J);  4:6,  14,  15  (JE);  8:8  (J);  11:10  (J),  21,  23,  24,  25,  27,  29,  30,  36  (aUE);  ei  passim, 
frequently  (analysis  of  Nowack). 

"  Cf.  Judg.  5:2,  3,  5,  11,  13,  23,  31.  Verses,  or  parts,  assigned  by  Nowack  to  other 
documents  than  J  are  not  referred  to  here. 


The  Book  of  Ruth  9 

Israelites  and  Moab  (as  Nowack  reads  for  Ammon  of  iUl)  ?  It  is 
unnecessary  to  multiply  comparisons  further:  there  is  just  as  much 
Yahwism  in  Judges  as  in  Ruth. 

As  for  the  settled  customs  in  the  Book  of  Ruth  to  which  allusion 
is  made,  they  are  of  the  most  primitive  and  such  as  are  perfectly 
congruent  with  a  wild  age  such  as  Judges  presupposes.  The  institu- 
tions of  redemption  of  property  and  the  inheritance  of  women, 
which  alone  figure  in  our  book — the  levirate  nowhere  plays  a  part^^ — 
are  certainly  primitive  enough  and  smack  more  of  the  tribal  ties  of 
the  desert  than  of  civilization.'*^  Accordingly,  neither  the  opening 
words  of  Ruth  nor  the  picture  of  life  in  Bethlehem  as  represented  in 
the  book  can  be  used  in  any  way  as  evidence  of  its  late  date,  as 
Nowack  argues. 

2.  The  genealogy,  4:18-22,  certainly  cannot  be  considered  early; 
and  if  a  genuine  portion,  would  prove  Ruth  to  be  of  late  date.  How- 
ever, the  table  is  palpably  not  a  part  of  the  book,  as  Driver,**  Konig,*' 
and  Bertholet^^  have  pointed  out.  Also  Nowack  grants  the  possi- 
bility of  the  genealogy  being  a  late  addition.  This  argument  for  a 
late  date  is  therefore  void. 

3.  The  late  character  of  4:7,  however,  has  been  emphasized  by 
both  Nowack  and  Bertholet  as  an  indication  of  late  date.  They 
believe  the  drawing  off  of  the  shoe  referred  to  here  and  the  custom 
of  Deut.  25:9  are  identical.  An  explanation  like  that  of  Ruth  4:7 
would  be  necessary  only  in  case  of  an  obsolete  custom.  The  only 
period  when  this  ancient  custom  could  have  been  discontinued  and 
forgotten  was  after  the  Exile,  which  changed  the  whole  life  of  the 
people,  argue  the  proponents  of  a  late  date.  No  reason,  however, 
exists  for  believing  that  any  of  the  long-established  and  vital  social 
customs  of  the  Hebrews,  such  as  the  levirate,  were  discontinued. 
We  know  that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  enforced  all  the  practices  enjoined 
by  the  Law;  and  the  levirate  and  haligah  were  in  force  long  centuries 
after  the  Exile.  The  drawing  ofiF  of  the  shoe  was  therefore  not 
forgotten*..:^- 

"  In  a  future  paper  I  hope  to  show  that  the  levirate  is  a  late  institution  with  the 
Hebrew  people. 

"  The  inheritance  of  women,  implied  and  referred  to  in  3:2  and  4:10,  was  a  tribal 
custom  of  the  Arabs  imtil  forbidden  by  Mohammed,  QurSn  4:23,  26;  and  was  still  in 
vogue  among  the  Hebrews  in  the  early  monarchy,  cf.  I  Kings  2:22. 

"  LOTio,  pp.  455f.  "  Op.  ciL.  p.  287.  "  Op.  cit..  pp.  51.  7;    68  f. 


10  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

The  point  here  is  that  the  drawing  off  of  the  shoe  in  legal  transfer 
of  property  is  something  entirely  different  from  that  prescribed  in 
Deut.  25:9,  which  was  loiown  in  later  times  as  the  haltgah.  The 
custom  of  drawing  off  the  shoe  in  legal  transfer  of  property  was  much 
older  than  the  custom  of  the  levirate,  which  is  apparently  of  later 
origin  among  the  Hebrews.  It  would  seem  that  the  shoe  was,  in 
ancient  times,  considered  a  symbol  of  possession;  and  drawing  it  off, 
symbolic  of  renunciation  of  that  possession.  Hence  its  applicability 
in  legal  transfer.  Such  a  symbolism  is  found  also  among  the  ancient 
Hindoos  in  the  great  epic  of  Valmiki,  the  Rdmayana,  Book  II, 
Canto  cxii,'*^  when  Bharata  goes  to  summon  Rama,  his  brother  and 
the  rightful  possessor  of  the  throne,  to  Ayodhya.  Rama  refuses  to 
return,  and  taking  off  his  gold-embroidered  shoes,  presents  them  to 
Bharata  as  a  token  of  his  renunciation  of  the  inheritance.  Bharata 
returns  to  Ayodhya  and  places  Rama's  shoes  on  the  throne  as  a 
symbol  of  possession  and  authority  at  his  side  when  dispensing 
justice,  etc. 

The  custom  of  drawing  off  the  shoe  in  transfer  of  property  was, 
accordingly,  anciently  prevalent.  Gradually,  even  before  the  Exile, 
this  primitive  practice,  brought  into  Palestine  from  the  desert  per- 
haps, began  to  die  out;  and  when  the  Exile  came,  it  died  out  com- 
pletely in  this  connection  and  was  forgotten  by  most  people,  since, 
in  the  Captivity,  Babylonian  practices  prevailed.  After  the  Exile, 
therefore,  the  reference  in  Ruth  4:8  was  no  longer  understood, 
because  the  custom  survived  only  in  connection  with  the  levirate; 
and  so  some  late  reader,  or  perhaps  scribe,  who  still  knew  of  the  old 
practice,  inserted  a  gloss  (4 : 7)  to  explain  the  allusion.**  On  critical 
grounds  also,  this  verse  must  be  considered  a  gloss,  as  it  interrupts 
the  connection. 

An  argument  for  a  late  date  of  Ruth  from  4 : 7  is  therefore  impos- 
sible. 

4.  The  argument  for  a  late  date  of  our  book  from  its  place  in  the 
third  division  of  the  Jewish  Bible  is  absolutely  worthless.  It  is 
certain  that  no  collection  of  Prophets  or  Hagiographa  was  in  existence 
until  long  after  all  the  books  were  written.  The  Talmud,  Bab.  Bath., 
IS**,  proves  that,  up  to  about  150  a.d.,  all  books  were  separate 

"English  trans,  by  Ralph  T.  H.  Griffith,  London.  1895. 

<8  Driver,  also,  quite  correctly  pointed  out  (LOT^",  p.  455)  that  4:  7  is  a  late  explana- 
tory gloss. 


The  Book  of  Ruth  11 

volumes.  The  classification  into  Prophets  and  Hagiographa  of  the 
Jewish  Scriptures  can  be  proved  to  be  entirely  late  and  arbitrary, 
and  can  therefore  indicate  nothing  as  to  the  real  date  of  origin  of 
any  book  of  the  Old  Testament. 

5.  The  theory  of  a  late  date  of  the  Book  of  Ruth  rests,  accordingly, 
exclusively  on  the  indication  found  in  the  alleged  presence  of  Arama- 
isms  and  late  diction  in  the  book.  With  the  more  accurate  philo- 
logical knowledge  of  the  last  few  decades  the  number  of  these  has 
been  shown  to  be  more  restricted  than  was  at  first  assumed;*^  and 
of  those  still  cited  as  clearly  late  or  Aramaic,  which  number  six  or 
seven  all  told,  there  is  not  one  which  cannot  be  equally  well  or  better 
regarded  as  good  Hebrew  usage  or  otherwise  accounted  for. 

With  the  removal  of  the  necessity  of  recognizing  any  word  or 
expression  in  the  genuine  portions  of  the  Book  of  Ruth  as  being  late 
or  an  Aramaism,  the  only  valid  evidence  of  a  late  date,  and  the  only 
insurmountable  obstacle  to  assigning  an  early  one,  is  removed.  We 
are  free,  therefore,  to  assume  an  early  origin  with  Jewish  tradition 
and  a  considerable  number  of  modern  scholars.  Such  an  assump- 
tion is  supported  by  so  much  good  evidence  that  I  believe  an  early 
date  can  be  regarded  as  proved.     The  evidence  is  as  follows: 

1.  While  there  is  not  one  word  or  expression  in  the  genuine 
portions  of  Ruth  which  is  late.  Driver  has  pointed  out  {LOT^^,  p. 
454)  that  "the  general  Hebrew  style  (the  idioms  and  syntax)  shows 
no  marks  of  deterioration;  it  ...  .  stands  on  a  level  with  the 
best  parts  of  Samuel."  There  are  present  a  relatively  large  number 
of  words  and  usages  which  are  paralleled  only  in  the  earliest  Hebrew 
literature.  This  cannot  be  a  matter  of  chance  and  imitation  as 
Nowack  explains:  in  a  book  of  only  four  chapters  the  presence  of 
so  many  old  and  classical  usages  indicates  unmistakably  that  the 
book  is  ancient  and  not  late.^°  (For  a  list  of  such  usages  and  forms, 
see  Driver,  LOT^\  p.  454  [note  %].) 

*»  Lists  of  linguistic  peciiliarities  and  Aramaisms  are  given  by  A.  B.  Davidson, 
Introduction,  Vol.  I,  pp.  482  fT.;  Konig,  Einleitung,  p.  286;  Bertheau,  op.  cit.,  p.  286; 
Driver,  LOT^",  p.  455;  Bertholet,  op.  cit.,  p.  50,  4);  Nowack,  op.  cit.,  p.  180,  1);  Cheyne, 
Encycl.  Bibl.,  IV,  col.  4168.  One  word  ]nb .  1:13,  considered  irrefutably  an  Aramaism 
because  incorrectly  rendered  therefore,  can  be  only  Hebrew  in  this  sense,  by  its  derivation. 

so  The  Benedictine  Calmet,  Didionnaire  hislorique  el  critique,  1722  (quoted  by  Cheyne, 
Encycl.  Bibl.,  IV,  col.  4168),  beUeved  that  Ruth  was  written  by  the  same  author  as  the 
Book  of  Samuel  because  of  the  many  relationships  between  the  style  of  Ruth  and  Samuel. 
A  complete  discussion  of  Aramaisms,  forms,  etc.,  is  reserved  for  a  special  paper. 


12  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

2.  There  are  a  number  of  linguistic  and  graphic  peculiarities 
that  fall  in  the  realm  of  grammatical  forms  which  have  been  variously 
explained,  but  which  are  most  consistently  accounted  for  as  early 
forms.  Some  of  these,  as,  for  example,  the  forms  of  the  second 
person  sing.,  perf.  and  impf.,  in  3:3,  4;  2:8,  21;  3:4,  18,  are  also 
found  in  late  texts;  however,  with  other  evidences  of  early  date, 
are  better  explained  as  early  forms.  On  the  other  hand,  certain 
forms  of  the  pronouns,  as  the  longer  form  of  those  of  the  first  person 
and  the  relative,  are  definitely  early.  Likewise  the  frequent  occur- 
rence of  scriptio  defectiva,  while  in  later  times  the  tendency  was  toward 
an  excessive  use  of  scriptio  plena,  is  an  evidence  of  early  date.  The 
few  cases  of  scriptio  plena,  as  in  niT:2>'m  ,  2:7,  and  the  Aramaic 
spelling  in  ^'^'2 ,  1 :  20,  are  satisfactorily  explained  as  introduced 
by  late  scribes  under  the  influence  of  their  own  time.  It  is,  however, 
highly  improbable,  if  not  impossible,  that,  were  Ruth  late,  the 
scribes  (or  author)  should  have  introduced  so  many  defective-writings. 

3.  Besides  linguistic  and  graphic  evidence,  our  book  presents  not 
a  little  internal  evidence  which  compels  us  to  assign  an  early  date. 
The  general  tone  of  the  book,  the  customs  and  atmosphere,  are  posi- 
tively pre-Deuteronomistic.     The  indications  of  this  are: 

a)  The  arrival  of  Naomi  and  Ruth  from  Moab,  1:23,  is  "at  the 
beginning  of  the  harvest  of  barley."  This  time  was  just  when  the 
Passover  began  in  Palestine.  At  no  period  of  Israelitish  history 
would  a  writer  have  neglected  to  mention  the  Passover,  unless  this 
feast  as  the  celebration  of  the  commencement  of  the  spring  harvest 
(cf.  Deut.,  chap.  16)  had  not  yet  been  estabhshed.  The  writer  who 
described  the  arrival  of  the  two  women  as  above  must  have  lived 
in  the  age  before  the  establishment  of  the  Passover,  which  was  in  the 
pre-Deuteronomistic  era. 

b)  The  manner  of  conducting  the  harvest  as  related  in  chap.  2 
is  likewise  pre-Deuteronomistic.  Boaz  employs  his  hand-maidens 
to  work  in  the  field.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  harvesters  were 
men  employed  to  reap,  etc.,  it  seems  certain  that  the  women  can  have 
been  engaged  only  in  picking  up  what  was  left  on  the  field  by  the 
reapers  and  in  making  up  bundles  (sheaves).  But  picking  up  what 
was  left  was  contrarj^  to  the  law  of  Deut.  24:19,  and  therefore  the 
book  must  have  been  written  at  a  time  when  the  law  of  Deuteronomy 


The  Book  of  Ruth  13 

was  not  yet  established.  Moreover,  the  stress  laid  upon  Ruth's 
finding  some  well-disposed  person  who  would  permit  her  to  glean, 
2:22;  the  prominence  with  which  it  is  brought  out  that  Ruth  asked 
permission  to  glean,  2:7,  10,  13;  and  further  that  others  than  Boaz 
would  probably  repulse  her,  2 :  22 ;  all  this  indicates  a  state  of  affairs 
in  which  the  law  that  the  poor  be  allowed  to  glean  was  not  controlling , 
the  actions  of  men,  nor  even  established.  Furthermore,  it  cannot 
be  argued  that  such  treatment  would  be  meted  out  to  Ruth  because 
she  was  a  foreigner,  although  not  to  a  Jewess,  for  we  know  that  Ruth 
had  practically  become  one  of  the  Hebrews  (cf.  1:16".  .  .  . 
thy  people  shall  be  my  people,  and  thy  God  my  God");  and,  most 
important,  Deut.  24: 19  says:  ''When  thou  cuttest  down  thine  harvest 
in  the  field,  and  hast  forgot  a  sheaf  in  the  field,  thou  shalt  not  go  to 
fetch  it:  it  shall  be  for  the  stranger,  etc."^^  Now  it  seems  most  likely 
that  no  Hebrew  (or  Jewish)  writer,  remembering  all  that  this  implies, 
could  have  written  portraying  a  state  of  affairs  so  manifestly  pre- 
Deuteronomistic  as  Ruth,  unless  he  had  lived  in  that  period. 

c)  The  absence  of  any  mention  of  Shebu'  6th,  or  Pentecost,  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  harvest  (end  of  chap.  2)  indicates,  as  did  the 
failure  to  mention  the  Passover  in  chap.  1,  that  the  writer  did  not 
know  this  festival,  and  hence  must  have  lived  before  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Deuteronomistic  law,  at  which  time  alone  it  is  conceivable 
that  ShebU'oth  was  not  celebrated. 

d)  In  4:5,  10  Ruth  is  considered  a  part  of  the  property  of  Elime- 
lech  and  Mahlon  to  be  acquired  with  it.  This  discloses  a  state  of 
affairs  that  is  again  pre-Deuteronomistic — ^is,  indeed,  confined  to 
the  earliest  times.  No  writer  not  hving  at  a  time  in  which  the  state 
of  society  represented  in  Ruth  was  not  long  past  could  have  presented 
a  picture  of  the  life  of  the  Hebrews  of  this  period  so  faithful  and  true 
as  this  touch  and  allusion  to  the  drawing  off  of  the  shoe  in  4 : 6  show 
it  to  be.     Such  a  time  must  have  been  pre-Deuteronomistic. 

e)  Finally,  the  absence  of  objection  to  the  intermarriage  of  an 
/  Israelite  with  a  Moabitess  is  clearly  early.    Wellhausen  pointed  out^^ 

that  this  absence  of  hesitancy  to  speak  of  David's  ancestor  as  having 

"Cf.  also  the  treatment  prescribed  toward  strangers  in  Deut.  1:16;  10:18;  23:7; 
24:14ff.;  Exod.  22:21;  23:9;  Mai.  3:5. 

"  Bleek- Wellhausen,  Einleitung*,  p.  205. 


14  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

married  a  Moabitess  might  be  regarded  as  a  ground  for  considering 
the  book  pre-Deuteronomistic.  To  be  sure,  he  considered  such  a 
dating  incorrect  because  of  the  supposedly  late  diction,  etc.  But 
these  obstacles  being  removed,  this  argument  alone  is  practically 
conclusive  for  an  early  date.  It  cannot  be  argued  that  the  absence 
of  objection  to  intermarriage  is  purposely  manipulated  to  show 
that  unions  with  foreign  women  were  permissible  (which  is  con- 
sidered by  many  to  be  the  object  of  the  book)  since  it  can  be  shown 
that  this  would  not  at  all  be  proved. 

Taken  all  together,  therefore,  the  language,  graphic  peculiarities, 
and  general  character  of  the  Book  of  Ruth  indicate  very  strongly — 
indeed  in  the  opinion  of  the  author,  unmistakably  and  irrefutably — 
that  it  must  be  of  early  date.  The  vigor  and  consummate  art  of 
the  book  are  of  so  high  an  order  that  a  late  date  on  this  ground  alone 
is  practically  impossible.  Even  Cheyne,  who  would  make  all  of 
Hebrew  literature  as  late  as  flimsy  show  of  argument  will  permit 
and  who  believes  Ruth  late  on  hnguistic  grounds,  is  compelled  to 
admit  "that  the  story  of  Ruth  was  written  before  the  living  impulses 
of  Jewish  literature  had  been  choked  by  the  growing  influence  of 
legalism."  This  influence  was,  however,  already  present  at  the 
time  of  P  and  D,  and  accordingly  so  fresh  and  naive  a  story  as  this 
must  be  assigned  to  the  pre-Deuteronomistic  period  at  least. 

And  if  written  in  this  early  period,  our  book  must  have  been  a 
part  of  the  great  history  of  JE  and  ultimately  of  the  popular  stories 
of  J.  The  scene  of  the  story  is  Bethlehem-Judah,  and  it  must  have 
formed  one  of  a  cycle  of  David-Bethlehem  stories. 

With  Ruth  originally  a  part  of  J,  it  is  easily  possible  to  account 
for  its  present  form  as  a  separate  book.  When  the  Deuteronomistic 
editing  (which  combined  Deuteronomy  with  the  JE  history  and  gave 
form  as  separate  books  to  Judges  and  Samuel)  took  place,  the  story 
of  Ruth,  which  probably  preceded  the  account  of  events  related  in 
Samuel,  was  left  without  a  definite  place,  together,  perhaps,  with 
other  material.  Since,  however,  the  story  of  Ruth  was  fraught  with 
special  interest  and  importance  because  of  its  relation  to  King 
David,  the  account  was  made  a  special  book  by  itself. 

Now  in  this  form,  separated  from  its  original  context,  the  book 
opened  very  abruptly.     Accordingly  a  few  words  were  added  at  the 


The  Book  of  Ruth  15 

beginning  to  indicate  the  date  of  the  events  related.  Thus  the 
words  D'^t23"JJn  t2S123  ^12^2  ^JT'I ,  "And  it  was  in  the  days  when  the 
Judges  exercised  authority, "  are  accounted  for.  The  first  word  Tl^l 
shows  that  there  was  a  distinct  recollection  of  some  original  con- 
nection^^ in  which  the  book  stood.  The  present  introductory  form 
refers  to  the  period  of  the  Judges  as  something  past.  This  is  but 
natural,  since  these  words  were  added  at  a  point  of  time  subsequent 
to  that  period.  This  introduction,  also,  corresponds  exactly  to  the 
Deuteronomistic  frame-work  and  additions  of  Judges,  which  likewise 
refer  to  the  events  of  that  book  as  long  since  past. 

Besides  this  editorial  change  there  are,  I  believe,  three  other 
additions  in  our  book,  which  are  due  to  the  redaction  of  D  and  P 
(R*  and  Rp).  The  first  two  of  these  additions  are:  n^^rTDHJ  Q'pnb 
imbTO-b:?,  4:5,  and  the  same  words  plus  n:^n"Dli:  n"i3^"55bl 
l^lp^  njlT^JI  rn5<  D3?7J,  4:10.  These  additions  also  Professor 
Bewer^^  considered  to  be  not  original  portions  of  the  book,  with  the 
exception  of  iribHD'bs?  in  vss.  5  and  10,  but  he  believed  the  glosses 
were  inserted  by  a  late  reader  or  scribe.  It  is  better,  however, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  present  author,  to  consider  these  additions  as 
due  to  Deuteronomistic  editing  in  keeping  with  Deut.,  chap.  25, 
like  the  levirate  allusions  in  Gen.,  chap.  38,  which  are  also  to  be 
considered  as  by  R**  (cf.  note  42  to  page  293). 

The  third  passage  which  is  a  later  addition  to  Ruth  is  the  gene- 
alogy, 4 :  18-22.  As  stated  above,  this  genealogy  has  been  regarded 
by  a  number  of  scholars  as  not  an  integral  part  of  the  book.  Its 
affinity  with  genealogies  of  P  in  the  Pentateuch  is  unmistakable; 
its  language  and  formularistic  character  are  identical.  Even  in 
Chronicles  the  genealogies  do  not  bear  the  same  close  resemblance 
to  those  of  P.  This  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  genealogical 
table  in  Ruth  is  an  addition  by  the  authors  of  P  themselves.     The 

"  Budde,  ZAT,  XII,  1892,  pp.  43  fif.,  believed  this  was  the  "  Midrash  to  the  Book  of 
Kings."  All  that  is  true,  however,  of  Ruth  as  a  part  of  the  Midrash  would  be  equally,  or 
rather  much  more,  true  of  the  book  as  a  part  of  the  early  history  J(E). 

5<  Theol.  Studien  u.  Kriliken,  1903,  2,  "Die  Leviratsehe  im  Buch  Ruth,"  pp.  328,  332. 
Professor  Bewer  beUeves  here  that  no  levirate  marriage  is  intended,  the  additions  being 
glosses  on  the  basis  of  Deut.  25:6-10  because  of  the  similarity  of  ceremony.  Likewise 
in  AJSL.  20,  3,  April,  1904,  "The  Goel  in  Ruth  4:14,  15,"  pp.  205  f.,  he  regarded  these 
words  as  glosses  but  made  by  friends  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  to  make  it  appear  that  Boaz 
was  by  law  compelled  to  marry  Ruth. 


IG  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

genealogy  in  I  Chron.  2:10-12  (  =  Ruth  4:196-22a)  is  thus  copied 
from  Ruth  and  modified  to  serve  the  purpose  of  the  Chronicler.^^ 

If,  now,  it  is  granted  that  4:5,  10  contain  Deuteronomistic  expan- 
sions, and  4 :  18-22  are  an  addition  of  P,  it  is  quite  out  of  the  question 
to  suppose  that  our  book  was  written  as  late  as  the  post-Exilic  period. 

Accordingly  not  only  the  language  and  general  tone  of  Ruth,  but 
also  the  presence  of  Deuteronomistic  expansions  and  an  addition  by 
P  prove  that  the  story  is  of  early  origin. 

IV.  THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE  BOOK 
With  an  early  date  for  the  Book  of  Ruth  the  question  of  its  pur- 
pose practically  answers  itself.  Traces  of  Deuteronomistic  editing 
practically  prove  that  the  book  was  once  a  part  of  the  early  Hebrew 
history  J (E).^^  The  story  of  Ruth  must  thus  have  been  one  of  a 
number  of  stories  about  Bethlehem  and  the  family  of  David.  The 
purpose  of  the  book  is,  therefore,  not  at  all  different  from  that  of 
any  other  history. 

There  has,  however,  been  a  considerable  number  of  scholars  who 
have  considered  our  book  to  be  a  fiction  founded,  perhaps,  on  some 
old  legend,  but  none  the  less  a  fiction.  As  evidence  of  this  the  names 
in  the  book  are  cited.  Thus  ^7jrD ,  "pbn^J,  'Tb^ ,  ^3^5,  and 
even  ^1"!  and  T^H  are  supposed  to  be  fictitious  names  formed  by  the 
writer  to  illustrate  the  characters  of  his  story.  Very  many  have 
thought  the  names  "pbriTJ  and  'iTb'D ,  which  are  supposed  to  mean 
"sickness"  (nbn),  and  "consumption"  (nbS),  to  allude  to  the  early 
death  of  the  sons  thus  named.  t\T)  has  been  variously  explained 
as  for  nWI,^^  i.e.,  "female  friend,"  from  Wl,  or  (since  the  fore- 
going assumes  the  loss  of  an  ^  and  this  is  not  a  usual  phenomenon) 
as  from  the  root  TVH ,  "fill  or  sate,"  hence  "she  who  satisfies." 
7^3  has  been  explained  as  equal  to  T5  "Q,  i.e.,  "in  him  is  strength," 
in  contrast  to  "pbn'J  and  "CTb^ .  But  there  is  no  proof  or  necessity 
that  these  were  the  meanings  of  the  names.^^    In  the  case  of  TS^Il  and 

"This  is  likewise  the  view  of  Budde,  ZAT,  XII,  p.  460.  He  does  not,  however, 
consider  the  genealogy  a  later  addition  and  to  be  by  P,  since  he  believes  the  whole  book 
a  part  of  the  Midrash  to  Kings. 

56  Cf.  above  and  AJSL,  July,  1911,  pp.  298,  299. 

"  Cf .  the  Syriac  form  of  the  name,   Zaii?  • 

'*  pbrTD  may  have  meant  "sickness"  or  "weakness,"  but  that  it  referred  to  the 
early  death  of  the  son  so  named  is  not  a  necessary  conclusion.  ."jT^bD .  on  the  other  hand, 
probably  never  meant  "consumption."     The  root  HvD  means  "to  end,  be  complete," 


The  Book  of  Ruth  17 

ni"i,  the  etymologies  and  explanations  given  above  are  quite  im- 
possible. The  real  meaning  and  derivation  of  ancient  names  is  very 
difficult  to  ascertain,  and  the  idea  that  these  names  are  fictitious  is 
entirely  unfounded.  Oettli  and  Orelli,  also,  have  considered  the 
names  authentic  and  the  characters  historic. 

Recently  Stucken,^*  followed  by  Cheyne*'  and  Winckler,^^  has 
thought  Ruth  to  be  a  mythological  legend  applied  to  the  history  of 
David's  ancestors.  Winckler^^  especially  has  attempted  to  work  out 
the  theory  that  Ruth  is  a  representation  of  Tamar  (Gen.,  chap.  38)  = 
Istar  and  that  the  other  characters  are  mythological  impersonations. 
Even  in  Naomi  under  the  name  of  Mara  1 :  20  =  rr02 ,  Winckler  has 
managed  to  see  a  mythological  personage,  a  representation  of  Tamar, 
by  saying  that  TTCC  or  TTOZ  was  not  the  original  name  but  'U2T\ ,  a 
similar  form  of  the  imperfect,  which  is  the  usual  Old  Testament 
name  of  Istar  according  to  him.  By  means  of  various  manipulations 
of  letters  and  names  Winckler  has  read  a  complete  system  of  my- 
thology into  the  book.  But  that  these  manipulations  and  identifica- 
tions are  true  requires  as  much  imagination  to  believe  as  Winckler 
exercised  in  making  them.  Professor  Haupt  in  his  interpretation  of 
Ruth^3  rejected  the  attempt  to  see  any  mythology  in  the  book.^* 

and  hence  "completion"  is  as  probable,  at  least,  as  "consumption"  for  the  meaning.  It 
may  have  referred  to  the  fulfilment  of  a  vow  or  the  like,  and  have  been  a  usual  Hebrew 
name.  Professor  Haupt  has  pointed  out  to  the  author  that  ]l^bD  may  mean  "perfec- 
tion" (liice  bl^D'O).  comparing  nbsri.  etc.  With  regard  to  "JlbnTD .  "sickness,"  Dr. 
Haupt  questions  whether  a  mother  would  be  apt  to  name  her  child  thus,  as  it  would  be 
a  bad  omen.     He  has  also  pointed  out  that  pbrTO  may  be  connected  with  I5n  and 

rr^bri-     Sj^iac     .V  ^    means  "sweet,"  Arabic  ^^o  ,    vA-a*  ,    ^^£>^ ,   "candy,"  etc. 

This  would  make  "jlbrTD  mean  "sweet,  sweetness";  cf.  the  present  "honey"  applied  to 
children  as  a  term  of  endearment. 

«»  Astralmythen,  p.  110.  «o  Art.  "Ruth,"  Encycl.  Bibl. 

^^  Altoriental.  Forschungen,  III',  "Rut,"  pp.  65fr. ;  cf.  Schrader,  Die  Keilinschriften 
und  das  Alte  Testament^  {KAT),  Berlin,  1903,  I,  p.  229,  n.  2. 

62  AUoriental.  Forsch.,  loc.  cit. 

•3  In  the  Old  Test.  Seminary  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  1904-5. 

"  H.  Zimmem  in  Schrader's  KAT',  II,  p.  438,  very  moderately  states  that  the  figures 
of  the  biblical  patriarchal  history,  etc.,  may  be  direct  reflexes  (directe  Nachtvirkung)  of 
Babylonian  gods  and  that  Ruth  among  other  personages  may  go  back  to  the  Babylonian 
Istar  in  some  features  {eimelne  Zuge)  with  more  or  less  probability  (mil  mehr  oder  weniger 
WahrscheinUchkeit) .  In  spite  of  Stucken  and  Winclder's  far-reaching  assumptions  and 
assertions  {sehr  weitgehendc  Aufstellungen,  n.  1),  Zimmem  does  not  seem  to  consider  the 
whole  subject  as  more  than  a  possibility ;  his  reserve  in  entering  upon  a  presentation  of  the 
various  features  (ohne  in  E inzelerOrterungen  desselben  eimulreten)  may  fairly  be  taken  as 
an  indication  of  his  position  on  this  subject  and  that  he  saw  "  n-eniger  Wahrscheitdichkeii" 
in  the  case  of  Ruth. 


18  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

Indeed,  if  the  book  were  at  bottom  nothing  but  a  myth,  none  of 
the  manifold  purposes  for  which  various  scholars  have  believed  the 
book  to  have  been  written  would  be  possible,  since  a  mere  fiction 
would  have  had  little  or  no  weight  or  effect  on  the  practical-minded 
Hebrews.  An  excellent  summary  of  many  of  the  views  of  the  pur- 
pose of  Ruth  will  be  found  in  Reuss,  Geschichte  der  heiligen  Schriften 
des  Alien  Testaments^,  §  243.  It  is  desired  to  take  up  here  the  most 
important  and  recent  of  the  views  advanced  and  point  out  the  reasons 
for  their  untenability,  and  particularly  so  with  regard  to  the  view 
which  sees  in  Ruth  a  protest  against  the  rigor  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
in  the  matter  of  marriage. 

1.  Bertholdt^^  and  Benary^^  advanced  the  theory  that  Ruth  was 
written  to  inculcate  the  duty  of  the  levirate  marriage  by  showing  the 
happy  results  which  followed  Boaz'  marriage  with  Ruth.  Such  a 
purpose  is,  however,  quite  impossible,  since  not  only  is  this  marriage 
not  a  levirate  marriage,  or  brother-in-law  marriage,  but  it  is  not  even 
a  Niyoga  marriage,  or  one  with  the  next-of-kin  to  raise  up  seed  to 
a  dead  relative."  There  is  in  Ruth  no  purpose  of  raising  up  seed  to 
the  dead  husband  of  Ruth,  nor  yet  of  Elimelech.^^  The  only  insti- 
tutions to  which  reference  is  made  in  our  book  are  the  ancient  customs 
of  redemption  of  an  estate  by  relatives,  and  the  inheritance  of  women 
as  property,  which  make  it  incumbent  upon  the  heir  or  redeemer  of 
the  property  to  accept  as  wife  or  otherwise  provide  for  the  \N'ife  (or 
wives)  of  the  dead  relative.  It  is  the  right  and  obligation  of  the 
redeemer  upon  which  the  story  of  Ruth  is  based,^*  not  the  levirate. 

2.  Reuss  believed  that  the  book  was  written  after  the  fall  of 
Samaria  and  had  for  its  purpose  the  furtherance  of  a  reunion  of  the 
remnants  of  the  Northern  Kingdom,  left  behind  in  Ephraim,  with  the 
Southern  Kingdom  by  showing  that  there  could  be  no  patriotic 
objections  to  a  reunion  on  the  part  of  the  Ephraimites,  as  the  Davidic 
djTiasty  in  the  South  was  really  Ephraimitic.     The  connection  with 

«  Einleitung,  pp.  2331  fl.  ««  De  Hebraeorum  Leviratu,  Berolini,  1835. 

"As  Driver,  LOT^o,  p.  454,  and  n.  t>  believes.  Reuss,  Geschichte  der  heil.  Schrift.^, 
etc.,  p.  314  below,  rightly  saw  that  there  is  no  levirate  nor  Niyoga  in  the  book. 

»8  Ruth  4 : 5.  10,  and  1 :  13  are  the  passages  upon  which  the  ^iew  of  a  le\'irate  marriage 
is  foimded.  But  in  4:5,  10,  the  reference  to  raising  up  seed  is  a  later  addition,  and  in 
1:13  there  is  no  such  idea. 

"  Cf.  chaps.  3  and  4.  The  acquirement  of  Ruth  as  property  in  chap.  4  represents 
an  ancient  custom  essentially  identical  witli  the  old  Arabic  custom,  against  which  prac- 
tice Qoran  IV,  23,  26  is  aimed. 


The  Book  of  Ruth  19 

Ephraim  came  about,  according  to  Reuss,  through  EHmelech  and 
his  sons  Mahlon  and  Chihon,  who  were  Ephrathites  (1:2)  =  Ephra- 
imites.  Now  Ruth  was  Mahlon's  wife,  and  when  she  became  the  wife 
of  Boaz,  the  offspring  of  this  marriage,  Obed,  was  not  alone  heir, 
through  Boaz,  of  Judah,  but  was  also,  legally,  through  Mahlon, 
the  successor  or  heir  (Rechtsnachfolger)  of  an  Ephraimite;  and  thus 
the  descendants  of  Obed,  the  sons  of  Jesse,  i.e.,  the  dynasty  of  David, 
are  really  Ephraimitic. 

The  first  and  chief  reason  why  Reuss's  theory  is  impossible  is 
because  ''n"i35<  (1:2)  does  not  mean  Ephraimite:  it  is  merely  a  coinci- 
dence that  T11SU5  is  the  nomen  gentilicium  of  the  noun  nn"iSSJ5 ,  as 

T  T  ;   V 

well  as  of  the  noun  D"]'^S!S5.     In  Ruth  here,  Ephrathite  is  intended; 

cf.  nln"iSJ!< ,  4:11.  With  this,  the  basis  of  Reuss's  view  is  withdrawn, 
as  has  been  pointed  out  by  a  number  of  writers.™ 

Secondly,  even  if  it  were  true  that  Ephrathite  =  Ephraimite,  it 
would  still  be  impossible  that  Ruth  should  have  been  written  to  pave 
the  way  for  a  reunion  of  the  two  kingdoms  by  showing  that  there 
could  be  no  objection  on  the  part  of  the  Ephraimites.  Such  an  objec- 
tion would  still  exist.  Reuss  in  his  explanation  represents  the 
objection  on  the  part  of  the  Ephraimites  as  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
Davidic  house  was  a  foreign  one  with  no  legal  claim  to,  or  connection 
with,  Ephraim.  Ruth  shows,  says  Reuss,  that  this  d3masty  was, 
through  its  ancestor  Obed,  not  alone  the  natural  heir  of  Judah,  but 
the  legal  successor  of  Mahlon,  an  Ephraimite.  But  this  gives  the 
Southern  Dynasty  only  a  legal  title;  and  a  legal  claim  the  house  of 
David  always  had,  since  originally  the  Northern  Kingdom  was  just 
as  much  a  part  of  Israel  as  the  Southern.  The  Northern  state,  by 
revolting  from  the  United  Kingdom,  did  not  destroy  the  legal  title  of 
the  Davidic  house.  Consequently  the  Book  of  Ruth  could  not  have 
removed  the  objections  of  the  Ephraimites,  granting  they  had  any  at 
that  time,  and  even  granting  Ephrathite  =  Ephraimite. 

Thirdly,  still  admitting  the  foregoing,  nobody  from  reading  the 
book  would  ever  suspect  what  the  object  of  the  author  was.  Orelli 
has  very  justly  said,^^  "  Der  politische  Autor  hatte  seine  Absicht  so 

'»  Cf.,  e.g.,  Bertholet,  Commentary  on  Ruth,  Introd.,  p.  51,  1);  Nowack,  Commentary, 
p.  183,  2. 

'«  Protestant.  Realencydopadie^,  XIII,  art.  "  Ruth,"  p.  142.     Cf.  3d  ed.  (1906),  p.  267. 


20  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

gut  versteckt,  dasz  sie  kaum  jemand  herausfinden  mochte."     Reuss's 
view  has  accordingly  been  rejected  on  all  sides. 

3.  The  view  of  Ludwig  Kohler,"  that  "the  booklet  of  Ruth,  for 
purposes  of  edification  and  apparently  in  a  manner  freely  imagina- 
tive, depicts  how  Jahwe  deprives  a  woman,  Naomi,  of  all  hope,  how 
she  bows  herself  to  His  will,  and  then  how  God  answers  all  her  prayers 
and  repays  her  God-fearing  resignation  even  with  happiness,"  is 
rather  a  homiletical  interpretation  than  the  statement  of  a  purpose 
of  the  book.  In  common  with  the  old  theologico-homiletical  views 
that  Ruth  was  written  for  moral  purposes  (to  show  the  piety  of  Ruth 
and  power  of  Yahweh,  or  to  furnish  an  example  of  the  proper  behavior 
of  mothers-  and  daughters-in-law  toward  each  other,'^  Kohler's 
statement  of  what  the  book  contains  is  rather  a  synopsis  of  a  sermon 
on  the  lessons  to  be  drawn  from  our  book  than  a  scientific  statement 
as  to  the  possible  purpose  of  it. 

4.  Wellhausen"  saw  in  Ruth  a  fiction  tracing  the  descent  of 
David  to  a  heathen  proselyte,  in  the  manner  in  which  in  the  Talmud 
there  is  a  marked  predilection  for  tracing  the  descent  of  the  most 
notable  Jewish  families  from  heathen  proselytes,  manifesting  itself 
in  considering  the  most  famous  Scribes  and  Rabbis  to  be  descendants 
of  Sisera,  Sennacherib,  Nebucadnezzar,  and  Haman,  for  examples 
of  which  see  in  Tal.  Sanhedrin,  Pereq.  Heleq.  In  this  "  Tendenz," 
however,  Wellhausen  saw  only  a  theoretic  interest  in  history  as 
opposed  to  the  "  Tendenz  "-theory  as  enunciated  by  Geiger,  Urschrift, 
1857,  pp.  49  fT.,  upon  which  the  view  to  be  discussed  below  (6)  is 
founded.  Wellhausen's  theory  has  failed  to  convince  anyone  but 
himself,  it  seems.  It  cannot  be  shown  that  the  tendency  of  the  Tal- 
mud to  trace  the  origin  of  Jewish  families  to  heathen  proselytes 
existed  previous  to  the  Talmudic  age  (at  least  the  third  century  a.d.). 
The  Talmudic  tendency  must  have  had  its  origin  in  the  undoubted 
fact  that  the  early  Hebrews  were  a  mixed  race,  and  that  many  heathens 

"In  Theol.  Tijdschrift,  1904,  p.  472.  His  words  are:  "Das  Bticlilein  Ruth  stellt 
in  erbaulicher  Absicht  und  in  wahirsclieinlicli  vielfach  freierfundener  Weise  dar,  wie 
Jahwe  einer  Frau  Naemi  alle  Hoflnung  nimmt,  wie  diese  sicli  ....  unter  seine  Hand 
beugt,  und  wie  dann  Gott  ....  alle  ihre  Wiinsche  erfiillt  und  sie  f iir  ihre  gottesfUrclitige 
Ergebung  sogar  mit  Gliicke  belohnt. " 

"  The  latter  view  is  that  of  Noldenhawer,  cited  by  Reuss,  Geschichte  der  heil.  Schrift.^, 
etc.,  p.  313.     Cf.  idem  for  other  similar  views. 

'*  In  Bleeli- Wellhausen,  Einleiiung*,  p.  205. 


vC 


The  Book  of  Ruth  21 

became  converted  and  entered  "the  congregation  of  the  Lord." 
This  the  Rabbis  knew,  and  such  a  book  as  Ruth  kept  the  knowledge 
alive.  Thus  the  tendency  may  have  arisen;  but  the  Book  of  Ruth 
is  rather  a  foundation  for  it  than  an  illustration  of  the  practice. 

5.  A  view  of  the  purpose  of  the  Book  of  Ruth  that  has  frequently 
been  propounded  is  that  it  was  written  to  give  some  details  of  David's 
origin  and  family  in  addition  to  what  is  given  in  I  Sam.  Such  infor- 
mation the  genealogy  4 :  18-22  is  supposed  to  supply.  But  this  pas- 
sage may  be  shown  to  be  a  later  addition,  and  must  be  so  regarded. 
The  Book  of  Ruth  as  originally  written  gave  very  little  information 
as  to  David's  origin  and  family,  for  it  scarcely  mentions  David  (4 :  176). 
Even  with  the  genealogy  the  amount  of  information  given  about 
David  and  his  immediate  family  is  very  meager.  We  cannot,  there- 
fore, believe  that  the  book  was  written  as  a  separate  composition  for 
the  purpose  of  shedding  light  on  David's  origin.''^ 

6.  The  theory  that  has  of  recent  years  found  the  widest  accept- 
ance is  the  one  which  makes  the  Book  of  Ruth  a  polemic  or  protest 
against  the  rigor  of  the  reform  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in  the  matter 
of  intermarriage  of  Jews  with  foreign  women. '^^  The  view  is  found 
stated  in  Geiger's  Urschrift,  1857,  pp.  49  ff . ;  it  involves  a  date  of 
composition  as  late  as  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  dating 
alone  makes  this  theory  quite  impossible  ;^^  but  for  other  reasons  as 
well  it  may  be  shown  to  be  untenable.  In  view  of  the  wide  preva- 
lence of  the  theory  at  present,  a  statement  of  the  most  important 
objections  to  it,  apart  from  the  fundamental  impossibility  on  the 
ground  of  its  date,  seems  advisable. 

If  Ruth  had  been  written  by  the  opponents  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
in  favor  of  liberality  in  the  matter  of  intermarriage,  one  would  expect 
the  purpose  to  appear  from  the  book.  But  no  one  could  tell  from  the 
story  that  its  purpose  is  such  as  is  claimed :  Orelli's  criticism  of  Reuss's 
view  of  the  object  of  Ruth  applies  equally  well,  mutatis  mutandis, 

'5  p.  de  Lagarde,  Orienlalia,  II,  Gottingen,  1880,  p.  41,  states  that  the  statement 
in  4 :  18,  viz.,  V'^ti  mibin  nbSJI .  shows  that  the  author  of  Ruth  intended  to  indicate 
that  the  house  of  David  was  equivalent  to  that  of  Aaron.  Tliis  reveals  a  purpose  to 
aggrandize  the  house  of  David.  Cf.  also  the  theory  advanced  by  Lagarde  in  MUtheiluug, 
IV,  Gottingen,  1891,  p.  313.  below. 

'«  Cf.  Ezr.,  chaps.  9  ff.;    Neh.  13:23  f. 

"  See  above,  pp.  7-16,  equals  the  article  of  the  author  on  "  The  Character,  Contents, 
and  Date  of  Ruth,"  AJSL,  July,  1911,  pp.  291-300. 


22  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

to  this  theory:  "Der  ....  Autor  hatte  seine  Absicht  so  gut 
versteckt,  dasz  sie  kaum  jemand  herausfinden  mochte."  Ludwig 
Kohler^*  has  also  pointed  out  that  the  view  that  the  book  is  a  polemi- 
cal pamphlet  is  impossible  because  no  trace  of  polemics  appears  in 
it.  Professor  Bewer/^  likewise,  saw  the  objection  "that  there  is 
absolutely  no  indication  of  polemics  in  the  book."  To  this  Cornill^" 
replies  that  a  polemic  or  ''Tendenz"  should  not  be  too  coarse-fibered 
and  obtrusive.  Professor  Bewer,  also,  replied  to  this  very  pertinent 
objection  that  the  absence  of  polemics  "might  very  well  be  an  evi- 
dence of  supreme  art.  The  book  would  thus  be  all  the  more  convin- 
cing." These  answers,  however,  are  not  a  refutation,  nor  even  an 
answer  to  the  objection.  If  a  work  is  polemical,  its  object  cannot 
be  too  obtrusive.  Anything  tending  to  make  the  position  of  the 
author  more  secure,  and  that  of  his  opponent  less  forceful  or  impos- 
sible, is  not  only  unobjectionable  in  a  polemic,  but  a  prime  necessity. 
If  one  writes  a  pamphlet  telling  a  most  charming  story,  it  may  be 
"supreme  art";  but  if  the  story  has  absolutely  no  bearing  on  a 
certain  vital  issue,  or  a  bearing  so  remote  that  even  the  sharpest 
intellects  have  difficulty  in  seeing  any  connection,  of  what  use  is  such 
a  story,  be  it  ever  so  dehghtful,  as  a  polemic?  The  same,  too,  is 
true  of  the  "Tendenz."  If  the  "Tendenz^'  is  not  in  the  book,  how 
can  anyone  be  expected  to  be  influenced  by  it  ? 

The  advocates  of  this  theory,  however,  point  to  certain  features 
which  are  supposed  to  indicate  the  bearing  of  the  Book  of  Ruth 
on  the  question  of  intermarriage.  Bertholet*^  and  Nowack*-  draw 
attention  to  the  repeated  reference  to  Ruth  as  the  Moahitess,  tTCL^yBri 
(1:22;  2:2,  6,  21;  4:5,  10),  and  that  she  herself  speaks  of  herself 
as  a  stranger  TPI'D^  (2 :  10),  which  is  supposed  to  be  unusual  emphasis 
of  the  fact  that  Ruth  was  a  Moabitess  and  stranger.  Now  this 
stranger,  the  Moabitess,  attains  an  exalted  position  in  Israel  by 
(/  becoming  the  mother  of  Obed,  the  grandfather  of  King  David. 
That  a  stranger  should  attain  so  high  an  honor  in  Israel  is  said  to  have 
been  due  to  the  blessing  of  Yahweh.  From  this,  it  is  argued,  the 
inference  is  to  be  drawn  that  Yahweh  did  not  curse  every  marriage 

'8  In  Teyler's  Theol.  Tijdschrift,  1904,  2,  pp.  458  ff. 
7»  In  AJSL,  XX,  April,  1904,  p.  205  below. 

80  Einleitung^,  p.  159,  §  22,  Anm. 

81  Op.  cit.,  p.  52.  82  Op.  cit.,  p.  184. 


I 


The  Book  of  Ruth  23 

with  a  foreign  woman,  and  hence  such  marriages  are  permissible. 
In  this  consists  the  "Tendenz"  of  the  book,  and  because  of  this  it  is 
believed  that  Ruth  was  written  at  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
when  the  question  of  intermarriage  was  being  adjusted. 

The  assumption  of  a  "  Tendenz"  on  the  foregoing  basis  is,  I  believe, 
entirely  unjustified.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  assumption  is 
based  upon  the  occurrence  of  n^nJ^i^aJl  six  times  and  n'^ijS  once, 

^  <T  •  -:       I    -  IT   •  :  T 

as  applied  to  Ruth.  This  is  by  no  means  an  undue  emphasis  of  the 
fact  of  Ruth's  foreign  origin,  and  is  not  even  a  frequent  reference  to 
this  circumstance — at  least  not  frequent  enough  to  justify  the  con- 
clusion that  the  happy  outcome  of  this  one  marriage  is  to  be  construed 
as  an  argument  for  other  marriages  of  the  same  sort  and  hence  as  a 
"Tendenz."  And  furthermore,  when  the  text  of  the  passages  con- 
cerned is  critically  examined,  it  develops  that  of  the  six  occurrences 
of  n"'3i<Tjn  ,  the  word  is  twice  shown  to  be  a  gloss  (2 : 2,  21)  by  the 
ancient  versions — a  fact  that  has  thus  far  escaped  notice  or  not  been 
sufficiently  considered.*^  This  leaves  but  four  cases  in  which  the 
word  is  genuinely  used,  so  that  there  is  no  undue  emphasis  laid  upon 
the  fact  that  Ruth  is  a  Moabitess,  as  in  each  of  these  instances  the 
adjective  is  necessary  to  the  thought. — ST'ISD  2:10,  too,  lays  no 
undue  stress  on  Ruth's  being  a  foreigner,  since  in  the  context  in  which 
the  word  is  used,  the  sense  is  rather  that  of  "stranger,  unknown  per- 
son" (a  sense  which  preserves  the  more  original  meaning  of  the  word^) 
as  the  next  verse,  lyn  Ijtl ,  etc.,  proves. 

In  this  state  of  affairs  there  seems  to  be  no  justification  for  the 
"  Tendenz  "-theory.  Only  those  who  are  looking  for  some  ground  for 
an  unlikely  theory  could  elaborate  an  ulterior  motive  from  the  few 
and  necessary  descriptions  of  Ruth.  Orelli  is  right  in  saying :  "  Gegen 
die  Annahme  einer  blossen  Tendenz-  und  Lehrdichtung  straubt 
sich  die  naive  Einfalt  und  Anmut  der  Erzahlung."*^ 

However,  even  if  we  should  grant  that  there  may  be  some  "  Ten- 
denz" in  the  Book  of  Ruth,  as  there  is  not,  it  would  still  be  impossible 

"  In  these  two  cases  the  word  rT'Si^'TSn  is  quite  out  of  place  in  the  Hebrew,  as  it 
is  not  necessary  to  the  thought ;  and  knowing  the  weakness  of  scribes  for  adding  epithets 
and  details  on  the  basis  of  cases  where  there  is  a  necessity  for  them,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  rT'SSipn  is  a  gloss.  A  similar  gloss  not  noted  recently  is  nUTlJn.  1:22; 
likewise  SSTQ  rniCZl ,  1 :6,  is  such  a  gloss,  I  believe. 

8«  Cf .  "IT.  "strange,"  then  "foreign." 

>5  RealencycU,  XVII,  Leipzig,  1906,  art.  "Ruth,"  p.  267. 


24  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

to  suppose  the  account  to  have  been  written  as  a  protest  against  the 
rigor  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah — a  polemic  advocating  liberality  in 
the  matter  of  intermarriage.  How  could  one  reasonably  argue  that 
because  a  particular  intermarriage  resulted  in  a  blessing  to  all  con- 
cerned, such  marriages  were  in  general  permissible  ?  The  exception 
only  proves  the  rule;  and  nobody  could  thus  legitimately  argue 
from  one  case,  and  that  too  one  that  occurred  under  widely  different 
conditions  and  circumstances.  What  was  common  practice  and 
permissible  at  the  time  of  the  Judges  was  later  forbidden;  and  to 
argue  that  because  at  that  time  Yahweh  blessed  one  such  marriage, 
even  though  it  were  the  ancestors  of  King  David,  foreign  marriages 
at  any  time,  and  particularly  at  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
were  permissible,  would  be  most  illogical  and  unconvincing.  More- 
over, the  number  of  such  marriages  with  non-Hebrew  women  was 
large^^  in  the  early  time,  and  to  cite  the  case  of  the  happy  mar- 
riage of  Ruth  and  Boaz,  who  lived  long  before  even  David  (through 
whom  it  was  that  Ruth  and  Boaz  receive  their  importance),  when 
David  and  Solomon  and  many  others  had  foreign  wives  in  still  later 
times  and  were  censured  therefore,*^  would  have  had  as  much  effect 
on  the  mind  of  the  people  of  the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  as  it 
would  have  now,  i.e.,  none  at  all.  This  theory  of  the  purpose  of  the 
book  is  illogical,  and  hence  untenable. 

The  proof  of  the  utter  lack  of  cogency  in  the  argument  lies  in  the 
fact  that  the  people  themselves  who  at  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
had  taken  foreign  women  to  wife  never  denied  that  they  had  done 
wrong;  they  at  once  admitted  this,  and  agreed  to  put  away  their 
foreign  wives.^^  Those  who  clung  to  their  wives  did  so  in  spite  of 
their  knowledge  that  their  marriage  with  foreign  women  was  not 
permissible  or  justifiable  and  without,  indeed,  trying  to  justify  their 
course  of  action.  There  was  really  no  person  who  did  not  feel  the 
logic  of  Ezra's  argument.^^ 

The  reasons  for  this  will  be  clear  from  a  consideration  of  the  cir- 

86  Cf.  Judg.  3:6,  14fif.  (Samson);  I  Sam.  27:3;  II  Sam.  5:13  (David);  I  Kings 
11:1  fl.  (Solomon);  etc. 

8'  See  the  foregoing  references  in  n.  86. 

88  Ezra  10:5.  12. 

89  Neh.  13:28  is  not  at  all  against  this,  as  the  son  of  Joiada  climg  to  his  alliance  for 
personal  and  political  ambition,  undoubtedly. 


The  Book  of  Ruth  25 

cumstances  in  Judaea  at  that  time.  They  were  of  a  peculiar  nature. 
The  community  at  Jerusalem  had  just  returned  from  the  Captivity 
and  become  again  established,  and  they  were  few  in  numbers.*'  If, 
now,  many  of  the  people  intermarried  with  foreign  women,  it  meant 
the  extinction  of  the  nation  and  race^' — the  second  and  third  genera- 
tions would  no  longer  be  Hebrews  (Jews),  but  Ashdodites,  Ammonites, 
and  Moabites.^2  xhe  feeling  at  this  time  was  intense  and  immediate 
action  was  imperative  if  the  nation,  race,  and  religion  were  to  be 
preserved.  Forceful  measures  were  adopted  to  compel  the  priests 
and  people  to  abandon  their  foreign  consorts.^^  This  action  had  its 
effect.  The  loyal  Hebrews  (Jews)  clung  to  their  race  and  their  God, 
and  so  the  people  survived  to  this  day. 

Are  we  now  to  suppose  that  the  very  few  bolder  and  powerful 
men,  who  at  this  juncture  were  traitors  to  the  cause  of  Yahweh  and 
chose  to  cling  to  their  wives  of  foreign  race  rather  than  to  their  people 
and  God,  adopted  the  feeble  method  of  writing  or  causing  to  be 
written  a  story  of  ancient  days^* — the  Book  of  Ruth?  Could  any 
composition,  no  matter  how  forceful,  have  had  any  effect  against  the 
vigorous  policy  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah?  And  are  we  to  suppose 
that  the  Book  of  Ruth,  which  at  most  contains  seven  references  to 
the  fact  that  Ruth  was  a  foreign  woman  and  says  not  a  word  in  favor 
of  such  marriages — are  we  to  suppose  that  this  book  was  written  as 
a  protest  against  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  ? 

The  theory,  therefore,  that  Ruth  was  written  as  a  campaign 
pamphlet  or  "  Tendenzschrift"  seems  to  reduce  itself  to  an  absurdity 
(reductio  ad  absurdum),  and  would,  thus,  be  shown  to  be  impossible. 
As  was  pointed  out,  the  theory  involves  a  late  date,  which  renders  it 
hors  de  combat.  Lastly,  if  written  according  to  the  theory,  it  seems 
most  certain  that  the  book  would  never  have  been  included  in  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.  The  memory  of  its  purpose  could  not  have  died 
out,  since  the  Scribes  and  Rabbis  were  the  direct  heirs  of  the  traditions 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah;  and  since  they,  later,  determined  which  books 
should  be  considered  sacred,  they  would  surely  have  rejected  Ruth. 

9»  Ezra  9:8.  "  Ezra  9 :  14  f .  »2  Neh.  13 :  23,  24. 

"Ezra  10:9  to  end;   Neh.  13:24f.,  28,30. 

9<  The  theory  of  Winckler  and  Cheyne  that  Ruth  is  a  mere  myth  and  yet  was  written 
as  a  protest  against  the  rigorous  policy  of  Ezra  and  Neliemiah  seems  singularly  impossible 
when  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  real  events  of  this  period. 


26  Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson 

There  is,  accordingly,  no  acceptable  theory  of  the  purpose  of  our 
book  which  has  thus  far  been  proposed.  It  has  in  fact  no  set  pur- 
pose, any  more  than  any  other  historical  narrative.  Moreover, 
if  Ruth  was  originally  a  part  of  the  great  history  of  J(E),  as  I  have 
shown,  I  believe,  to  be  likely,''"  we  need  look  for  no  purpose  in  our 
book  beyond  that  which  any  episode  in  a  history  has. 

•5  Above,  pp.  14,  15,  equals  the  paper  of  the  author  on  "The  Character.  Contents, 
and  Date  of  Ruth"  in  the  July,  1911,  number  of  AJSL,  pp.  298  ff. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH 

Louis  Bernard  Wolfenson  was  bom  January  4,  1882,  and  was 
brought  up  at  La  Crosse,  Wisconsin.  In  November,  1887,  he  entered 
the  primary  grade  of  the  schools  of  the  city.  In  February,  1894,  he 
entered  the  High  School,  from  which  he  was  graduated  with  honors 
in  1898.  In  October  of  the  same  year  he  entered  the  University  of 
Wisconsin.  In  addition  to  completing  the  Classical  Course,  he  satis- 
fied the  requirements  for  the  Hebrew  Group.  He  was  elected  to 
Phi  Beta  Kappa  in  the  spring  of  1901,  and  held  a  scholarship  in 
Hebrew  from  1898-1901.  In  June,  1901,  the  degree  of  B.A.  (clas- 
sical), in  the  Hebrew  Group,  was  conferred  upon  him,  and  he  was 
appointed  Fellow  in  Hebrew  for  the  year  1901-2.  This  year  he 
spent  in  graduate  study,  following  courses  in  Semitics  under  Dr. 
Kelly,  and  in  Sanskrit  under  Professor  Laird.  In  June,  1902,  he 
was  granted  the  M.A.  degree  and  was  reappointed  Fellow  for  the 
ensuing  year,  which  was  spent  in  the  study  of  Semitics  under  Dr. 
Kelly,  of  Hellenistic  Greek  under  Professor  Williams,  and  of  Sanskrit 
and  Historical  Greek  Grammar  under  Professor  Laird.  Having 
been  reappointed  Fellow  for  another  year,  he  resigned  and  came  to 
Baltimore  to  enter  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  in  the  autumn  of 
1903.  Here  he  followed  courses  in  Semitics  under  Professors  Haupt 
and  Johnston  and  Doctors  Blake  and  Rosenau,  in  Sanskrit  and  Indo- 
European  Comparative  Philology  under  Professor  Bloomfield,  in 
Egyptology  under  Professor  Johnston,  and  in  Tagdlog  under  Dr. 
Blake.  In  January,  1904,  he  was  appointed  University  Scholar  in 
the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  and  in  June  of  the  same  year,  Fellow  in 
Semitics.     In  October,  1905,  he  was  elected  Fellow  by  Courtesy. 

He  published  two  papers  in  the  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental 
Society,  Vol.  XXVII,  entitled,  "The  Infixes  la,  li,  lo  in  Tagdlog," 
and  "The  Pi  lei  in  Hebrew." 

To  all  of  his  instructors  he  gratefully  acknowledges  his  indebted- 
ness. 


27 


""^'""L:%ToM  WHICH  BOKKOW.D 

Thisbo«k.dueon.he_.as^.^^ 

RenewedbooU.aresubjec..o.»»ed.ate,eca 


'.,  .'       i,-  i- 


3Cto54JP 
X  6  ^954  LU 


280ct'55GP 
}CT2  91955  LU 

0£C  13  195510. 

230cV57MF 

.j-^  Arc- 
3^5  *y<iKi 


RECDLD    DEM  0  70.3  PM  5  8 

REG.  CIS,   WAY  1  5  13f 3 


21 


_100m-l.'54(1887sl6)476 


4f 


BROS.,  INC. 

Manu/aclurers 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
Stockton,  Calif. 


YD 


Ob'' 3^ 


THE 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  UBRARY 


"A 


r\> 


